Particular theorists have been largely responsible for shaping the way that man thinks of himself in political situations. In contemporary times people are more aware of their rights as citizens due to theorists such as Locke and Mill. This is because they have each developed and presented their views on aspects like individuality and social and political control by the state. In short, their views have revolutionized the manner in which people are governed. However, they do have few differences even though they largely appear to agree on the same grounds.
To begin with, Mill’s doctrine asserts the importance of happiness in whatever one does. However, Mill also says that at an action that makes people happy should not in any way adversely affect the society in which the individual lives, especially those who are involved in that action.

According to Mill, it is suggested that the greatest happiness can be brought about through individuals practicing whatever s/he pleases, provided that no one is affected adversely, directly or indirectly, by the actions of the individual. It is because of this approach to freedom that Mill may be criticized.

Critics might think that Mill’s theory might be too partial because of the fact that it permits individuals to do whatever they want in society provided that it does not affect other people around them (Stuart, 1859). The core of the criticism lies in the fact that the there is a possibility of a single person’s practices spreading out to the rest of society, being accepted, and causing changes that alter community practices with the passage of time. If the practices could have widespread negative affects then it is possible that a society may be enveloped in problems beginning with the individual (Stuart, 1859).

In addition to this part of Mill’s theory, all individuals are obliged to make a certain consolidated contribution to the state/society because of the security that such an action provides provides. Through law, these obligations are fulfilled, and society manages to provide for all its members in times of need (Welfare).

In view of this, since Mill’s theory is one in which individuals are supposed to apply their common sense morality when presented by situations that pose threats to society, they can very easily take action against individuals who want to disrupt peaceful living and not contribute to state-running (such as those who do not pay taxes). Also, if there are individuals who do not consider the safety and security of others it must be realized that they themselves cannot be safe (Stuart, 1859).
Similar to Mil’s approach to safety and security of human life in society, John Locke was an individual who was concerned with various areas of human life as well. His views consisted of his views on religion and God, and so, he wrote about these and brought out significant points through which people could understand themselves better. He also helped society to a great extent as well, as it was on his philosophy that the United States Constitution was based.

John Locke developed the belief in natural rights, as these are the rights that every human being is born with. He asserts that according to an individual’s birth right, s/he has the right to everything thing that all others are entitled to. There is no way that one human being can be born having less or more rights than another (Locke, 1689).

Each human being is born with all abilities that others are born with, and hence, all individuals also have the capability of expressing themselves in anyway they choose. This includes being kind and cruel. Since, individuals may be kind, it is a characteristic that would benefit society, as such an individual would be able to help others graciously. This is actually the common sense morality that Mill refers to in his theory. However, since an individual also possesses the ability to be cruel this is something that is undesirable and can be destructive to society, which is also similar to Mill’s view of those who disrupt societal living. Locke’s theory also holds that all individuals must contribute to the security of the society. However, this is obviously based on pre-decide political framework (Locke, 1689).

John Locke held that political rights should be centered on the interest of the individual instead of the whole society. It can be observed here that Locke has emphasized more on individuality. This is because there was risk that smaller but more important opinions of individuals might be left out. Hence, the voice of the individual became increasingly important to freedom of the individual. This is why in present times freedom of the individual corresponds to the freedom of speech (Locke, 1690).

Though individuals are free to speak and express themselves according to Lockean theory, they may not claim anything. This refers to the particular issue of claiming political authority. One cannot simply grab political authority, but has to earn the consensual opinion of the people in general. In contrast to Mill’s theory, Locke appears to be more political in his approach rather than humanistic, especially when he speaks about governance.

While Mill is concerned with societal living and the rights that individuals have, Locke tends to go deeper into the political side of human living. Through his theory, it is clear that he tries to reinforce the rights of individuals through political approaches.